Net Neutrality Bandwagon

[Scheme]

When has that ever happened? Cite one case, please. I will just use their competitor instead and they lose business. I know that's what people keep saying will happen, but it makes no sense for any ISP company to do that.

Exactly, it's like saying without government intervention, grocery stores will stop selling apples.

In fact that's an extreme case because serving an extra website costs virtually nothing, while apples actually have costs associated to them.

 

[rob mafia]

Net neutrality just shifts that responsibility to the American government (almost like what China does) from the ISP. ISP's have very little reason to actually block sites from their users, and an unfiltered ISP will beat ones that blocks sites in a fair market. Website blocking wasn't a problem in the free market 2 years ago, so why should it be now?

monopolies. i live in philly and literally the only post-dsl ISP i can get here is comcast.

i've been on a waiting list for FIOS for 7 years now. they're clearly not entering my area.

granted, monopolies like this should already be illegal under antitrust law, making this somewhat moot... but this is the shitty reality i live with. and i know many other cities/areas share similar fates.

 

[Deleted member 490433]

Let's not overlook what this is in essence: the government getting more involved in Internet.

What incentives do ISPs actually have to screw over customers/content providers? The root of the problem is the fact that there is a monopoly in certain zones on ISPs. However, that number is growing smaller each year, and we already have laws in effect to provide protection against monopolistic practices.

Net neutrality just allows the US government to intervene in ISP practices, making this less efficient and more costly on the ISPs who have been pretty hammered by things like Netflix changing the scale of the Internet greatly. Also it allows the US government to have more of a say into what is 'fair' and 'unfair'. So you've essentially shifted your trust for what is 'fair' from the ISP to the US government.

Now I'm not against most of net neutrality, in fact I support it for the most part. There's just consequences of being labelled at Title II service that are not in line with what everyone is claiming for net neutrality. Ones that hurt both large and small ISPs, which at the end of the day will cost consumers either way. The barrier to entry to becoming an ISP is so gigantically high, that anything that hurts small ISPs is exponentially worse for the market.

ISPs have gotten so much shit when the real fact is that 20 years ago, the internet was mostly static documents. Nowadays we have 4K streaming and sites like Netflix have completely shattered the traditional throughput of the Internet, which ISPs have had to build around.

There's certainly aspects that make it a legitimate proposal, there have to be if they want it approved. But realistically how often does government support what is fair for us? How often do they support what lobbyists and corporations tell them to support. To see whose interests will be catered to one just needs to see which companies are lobbying against net neutrality, just follow the money.

 

[Scheme]

monopolies. i live in philly and literally the only post-dsl ISP i can get here is comcast.

i've been on a waiting list for FIOS for 7 years now. they're clearly not entering my area.

granted, monopolies like this should already be illegal under antitrust law, making this somewhat moot... but this is the shitty reality i live with. and i know many other cities/areas share similar fates.

But there were more ISP monopolies before net neutrality went up 2 years ago, and the Internet seemed to work fine. And net neutrality adds barriers of entry to new ISP's to compete in the market, making the market even smaller.

 

[Dramovitch]

Most corrupt government in American history

Nothing but Corporate Welfare

 

[blaseblah]

Let's not overlook what this is in essence: the government getting more involved in Internet.

What incentives do ISPs actually have to screw over customers/content providers?

Is this a serious question? Google Comcast. Look up all the unethical shit they do. They are one of the worst companies in the world.

Now I'm not against most of net neutrality, in fact I support it for the most part. There's just consequences of being labelled at Title II service that are not in line with what everyone is claiming for net neutrality. Ones that hurt both large and small ISPs, which at the end of the day will cost consumers either way. The barrier to entry to becoming an ISP is so gigantically high, that anything that hurts small ISPs is exponentially worse for the market.

ISPs have gotten so much shit when the real fact is that 20 years ago, the internet was mostly static documents. Nowadays we have 4K streaming and sites like Netflix have completely shattered the traditional throughput of the Internet, which ISPs have had to build around.

No, what's happening is that services like Netflix are coming out and allowing you to make use of the bandwidth you have been paying for this whole time.

Comcast has been charging you up the ass for data you weren't using. Now they are actually having to give you what you paid for.

And the barriers to becoming an ISP have nothing to do with net neutrality. This is a red herring.

 

[Deleted member 490433]

I'm glad most people are understanding the implications. You will always have contrarians but if you get a chance spread the word, we have a month to raise awareness.
We don't need more control and we don't need to pay to visit the websites we like.

 

[Scheme]

There's certainly aspects that make it a legitimate proposal, there have to be if they want it approved. But realistically how often does government support what is fair for us? How often do they support what lobbyists and corporations tell them to support. To see whose interests will be catered to one just needs to see which companies are lobbying against net neutrality, just follow the money.

There is no doubt that net neutrality hurts ISPs and they are incentivized to lobby against it, but that doesn't mean it's warranted.

Of course ISPs could start blocking websites without net neutrality. But it would hurt them in the ISP market. And they didn't do it before net neutrality was in place.

So essentially, ISPs both are disincentivized from blocking websites and did not do it before net neutrality was in place. So why should we shift the responsibility of fair content delivery to the US government?

We are putting trust in the US government to control something that isn't even broken.

 

[Skarr]

Net neutrality just shifts that responsibility to the American government (almost like what China does) from the ISP. ISP's have very little reason to actually block sites from their users, and an unfiltered ISP will beat ones that blocks sites in a fair market. Website blocking wasn't a problem in the free market 2 years ago, so why should it be now?

website blocking was a problem 2 years ago in china...Ive read over your comments in here and its alot of blahblah the real issue is that the government will have control of it...

 

[IsNormal]

Any call to action here besides boycotting bad companies?

(Not trying to be snarky. Just curious what to do for those of us who already aren't using any services which are threatening net neutrality)

 

[rob mafia]

But there were more ISP monopolies before net neutrality went up 2 years ago, and the Internet seemed to work fine. And net neutrality adds barriers of entry to new ISP's to compete in the market, making the market even smaller.

wtf are you talking about?

yes, the comcast monopoly has existed for more than 2 years. i'm not sure what you think your point is. i didn't say the monopoly was because of net neutrality.

 

[P4PSHERGOAT]

There is no doubt that net neutrality hurts ISPs and they are incentivized to lobby against it, but that doesn't mean it's warranted.

Of course ISPs could start blocking websites without net neutrality. But it would hurt them in the ISP market. And they didn't do it before net neutrality was in place.

So essentially, ISPs both are disincentivized from blocking websites and did not do it before net neutrality was in place. So why should we shift the responsibility of fair content delivery to the US government?

We are putting trust in the US government to control something that isn't even broken.

They will package websites into bundles and they will make you pay more for certain sites than others, basically what they are doing now with tv. Would you go to Sherdog if you had to pay for a special bundle of mma sites each month? This also has implications on them silencing websites they don’t like by removing them from available sites or throttling the internet connection of the user on those sites etc.

 

[Scheme]

Is this a serious question? Google Comcast. Look up all the unethical shit they do. They are one of the worst companies in the world.





No, what's happening is that services like Netflix are coming out and allowing you to make use of the bandwidth you have been paying for this whole time.

Comcast has been charging you up the ass for data you weren't using. Now they are actually having to give you what you paid for.

And the barriers to becoming an ISP have nothing to do with net neutrality. This is a red herring.

Comcast practices are an issue with monopolies.

And of course it will hurt small ISPs. Let's say you get a small ISP that wants to optimize their servers for content hosted in North America. Can't do that, net neutrality. Basically any optimization (whether good or bad from the user's perspective) would be restricted by net neutrality. Also, costs are always introduced when government regulation comes in, which in many cases is necessary.

And remember, net neutrality doesn't solve the problem of making the Internet 'fair'. It simply moves that responsibility to the always trustworthy and non-corrupt US government.

 

[TestosterOWN]

They will package websites into bundles and they will make you pay more for certain sites than others, basically what they are doing now with tv. Would you go to Sherdog if you had to pay for a special bundle of mma sites each month? This also has implications on them silencing websites they don’t like by removing them from available sites or throttling the internet connection of the user on those sites etc.

If this shit happens I will give up on browsing the Internet.

 

[Fyreborn]

I'd have to do some more research, but it kind of seems like net neutrality is just a way for the bigger websites to get more powerful.

How do...? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see how this is the case. What's your logic?

Charging us extra to visit certain websites? I'm wholly against them doing that, but I'm really surprised they don't make us already. I can't believe how much I take a site like Youtube for granted.

That's not going to happen. Companies would lose business. A company would have to be stupid as fuck at attempt this. Customers would not accept it.

The major fear mongering about net neutrality, probably isn't a concern.

The thing here is, the internet was a government invention. So I can tolerate more government interference than with most things. These companies didn't invent the internet - public funds did.

But it's a complex issue. One should always be wary of government interference in the free market. It's always supposed to be for the "public good", yet interference in the free market all too often has the exact opposite effect.

The 2008 fiscal crisis had many causes, but two were by far the primary causes: the Clinton administration forcing banks to give loans to people with poor credit (a policy the Bush administration had to keep in place due to democrat pressure), and modeling errors (securities analysts thought having a diversified portfolio of mortgage backed securities would be safe as they'd change in price independently, but in fact with a black swan event their prices were highly correlated and all tanked together).

The Big Short was a real good movie...but it completely fucking missed the real causes of the crisis. It tried to blame bankers' "greed", when that wasn't the story at all. Humans have a serious failing where they try to turn everything into a moral fable, when most decisions have nothing to do with morality.

A misguided moral crusade by the Clinton administration was one of the main causes, and the other main cause was math errors, which has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. People reaaally love their morality plays though, and try to twist shit into morality stuff.

Misguided moral crusades can be dangerous. Religious "sin" shit, war on drugs, forcing banks to give loans to people with bad credit etc. And government interference in the free market all too often has the exact opposite effect as desired - who probably got hit worst by the fiscal crisis? People with bad credit, who defaulted, and should never have gotten loans in the first place.

Anyway, one should be somewhat paranoid about government fucking with the free market for the supposed public good, as it often backfires. I can see justifying net neutrality though, as it is a government creation.

 

[ShogunsKnees]

Anything that gets snowflakes triggered I'm all for. Go Net Nueturedality

 

[nostradumbass]

How do...? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see how this is the case. What's your logic?

It's about the equivalent of the gov't stepping in and deciding no more overnight mail service or priority shipping. We have to be neutral, so no company is allowed to deliver packages any faster than the slowest service. It's just another excuse for government to dip their hands in yet another industry. There was no problem, so no reason for the government to intervene here.

 

[Fyreborn]

They will package websites into bundles and they will make you pay more for certain sites than others, basically what they are doing now with tv. Would you go to Sherdog if you had to pay for a special bundle of mma sites each month? This also has implications on them silencing websites they don’t like by removing them from available sites or throttling the internet connection of the user on those sites etc.

I think the idea ISPs will bundle site packages is pretty LOL-worthy. The extent to which customers wouldn't tolerate this is crazy. There would be a national fucking outcry, people would be pissed. It might lead to more government control than ever before in the end.

I could however see them doing shady behind the scenes stuff quietly, throttling Netflix or something because they want to discourage its use. If a whistleblower ever revealed something like that though, the media would probably crucify them. So it'd be dangerous to do that, and probably wouldn't help profits.

Anything that gets snowflakes triggered I'm all for. Go Net Nueturedality

How does this trigger snowflakes?

And if anything, doesn't that mean you should be *against* net neutrality?

 

[Better Every Day]

Let's not overlook what this is in essence: the government getting more involved in Internet.

Not all "involvement" is equivalent. Government "involvement" is also what protects our freedoms, example: The Bill of Rights.

What incentives do ISPs actually have to screw over customers/content providers?

The same incentives that everyone has who chooses to screw over customers... profit.

we already have laws in effect to provide protection against monopolistic practices.

Now you are supporting government involvement? Make up your mind.

Net neutrality just allows the US government to intervene in ISP practices, making this less efficient and more costly on the ISPs who have been pretty hammered by things like Netflix changing the scale of the Internet greatly.

Spare us the pity-party for corporations that are making loads of money, and who are using their wealth to buy our politicians so that they can impose onerous practices on us.

 

[TUFNewb]

Lol yeah just email your congressmen... I'm sure they really give a flying fuck <45>

Americans made their bed when they put republicans in total control of all three branches of government. Time to lay down in it and die.

"Buh but her emails and the mexicans..." Enjoy your super expensive internet access retards